Harris County, Texas by by the the Respondent, Sheriff Sheriff of Harris of Harris County. County.

Transcription

1 No. XXX STATE OF TEXAS IN IN THE THE DISTRICT DISTRICT COURT COURT VS. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS TEXAS JOHN DOE NTH NTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT DISTRICT APPLICATION FOR FOR WRIT WRIT OF HABEAS OF HABEAS CORPUS CORPUS MOTION TO TO QUASH INDICTMENT MOTION TO TO DISMISS AND BRIEF IN IN SUPPORT Judge Foo: Defendant John John Doe Doe files files this Application this Application for Writ of for Habeas Writ of Corpus, Habeas Corpus, Motion to to Quash Quash the Indictment, the Indictment, Motion Motion to Dismiss, to and Dismiss, Brief in and Support Brief in Support under the authority of the of First, the First, Fifth, Sixth Fifth, and Sixth Fourteenth and Fourteenth Amendments Amendments of of the United States States Constitution, Article I, Article Sections I, 10 Sections and 19 of 10 the and Texas 19 of the Texas Constitution, and and Articles Articles 11.08, 27.08, and and of the of Texas the Texas Code ofcode of Criminal Procedure for for the the following following reasons: reasons:!! I.! Applicant is is illegally illegally restrained restrained of his of liberty his and liberty confined and confined bond on bond in Harris County, Texas by by the the Respondent, Sheriff Sheriff of Harris of Harris County. County.!! II.! Applicant is is being being held held by Respondent, by Respondent, charged charged by two indictments by two indictments in cause numbers and and with with Online Online Solicitation Solicitation of a Minor. of a Minor.

2 III. Summary of the of Argument the Argument The defendant is indicted is indicted under under the provisions the provisions of Texas Penal of Texas CodePenal Code section , Online Solicitation of a Minor. of a Minor. This statute This statute is unconstitutional is unconstitutional for four reasons. A. Section is unconstitutional is on its on face its under face the under First the Amendment, First Amendment, as it is is a a content based based restriction that severely that severely criminalizes criminalizes a substantial a substantial amount of of harmless speech speech between between adults adults that is protected that is under protected the under the First Amendment. B. Section is unconstitutionally is vague under vague the under First Amendment the First Amendment because it it works to encompass to a vast a array vast of array communications of communications and will and will chill the exercise of of free free speech. speech. C. Section is unconstitutionally is overbroad under overbroad the Firstunder the First Amendment and and is not is narrowly not narrowly tailored tailored to promote to a promote compelling a state compelling state interest as as it prohibits it prohibits a substantial a substantial amount of amount protected of speech protected that is speech that is unnecessary to to the the protection of children. of children. D. Section violates the the Dormant Dormant Commerce Commerce Clause Clause Doctrine Doctrine because because it it unduly burdens interstate commerce commerce by attempting by attempting to place to regulations place regulations on the entirety of of the the Internet. Internet. Because the the statute statute violates violates the First the Amendment First Amendment and the Dormant and the Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine, it is it void. is void. 2

3 IV. BRIEF IN SUPPORT IN SUPPORT!! A. CONTENT-BASED RESTRICTION OF PROTECTED OF PROTECTED!! HARMLESS SPEECH A. Texas Penal Code Section (b)(1) is a is content-based a restriction restriction that that outlaws a a substantial amount amount of harmless of harmless speech speech between between adults that adults is that is protected under the the First First Amendment. A.1. Section includes adults in its in definition its definition of minor of minor section in (a)(1) section (a)(1) (A) an individual who who represents represents himself himself or herself or herself to be younger to be younger than than 17 years of of age. Because there there is no is further no further requirement requirement that the that actorthe actor believe the minor to actually to actually be under be under 17, the 17, act the prohibits act prohibits some some sexually sexually explicit communication between adults, adults, even even when when both parties both parties are aware are aware they are in solely adult company. A.2. The United States Supreme Court Court case case Ashcroft Ashcroft v. Free v. Free Speech Speech Coalition, U.S. 234 (2002), is is highly highly relevant relevant to cases to in cases which the in actor which is the actor is communicating with with a person a person who who represents represents himself himself to be a to minor. be a minor. There There the Court examined the the Child Child Pornography Prevention Prevention Act (CPPA), Act (CPPA), which which criminalized the possession the possession and distribution and distribution of of virtual child child pornography. Child Child pornography was defined was defined to include to any include sexually any sexually 3

4 explicit image that that was was advertised, advertised, promoted, promoted, presented, presented, described, described, or or distributed in in such such a manner a manner that conveys that conveys the impression the impression it depicts it adepicts a minor engaging in in sexually explicit explicit conduct. conduct. New York New v. York Ferber, v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 458 U.S. 747, 747 (1982) had upheld the the ban ban on on actual actual child child pornography due to due theto the compelling interest of protecting of protecting children children from the from production the production process. process. With virtual child child pornography, however, however, there there are no are victims no victims and the and law the law works to to only only prohibit prohibit pure pure content. content. The Court The in Court Ashcroft in Ashcroft v. Free Speech v. Free Speech Coalition held that that the law the was law overbroad was overbroad with respect with to the respect First to the First Amendment and and reiterated the the holding holding that where that where the speech the is speech neither is neither obscene nor the the product product of sexual of sexual abuse, abuse, it does not it does fall outside not fall the outside the protection of of the the First First Amendment. Ashcroft Ashcroft v. Free v. Speech Free Speech Coalition, Coalition, U.S. at 251. The The Court Court rejected rejected the government s the government s argument argument that virtual that virtual child pornography might might be used be to used entice to real entice children real to children engage into engage in sexual conduct and and the the argument argument that it that would it whet would the whet appetites the appetites of of pedophiles, responding The mere tendency of speech of speech to encourage to encourage unlawful acts acts is not is not a sufficient a sufficient reason reason for banning for banning it. Ashcroft it. v. Ashcroft Free v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. at 253. Further, the the Court Court noted, noted, The The provision provision prohibits a sexually a sexually explicit explicit film containing film containing no youthful no actors, youthful just actors, just 4

5 because it is placed in in a a box box suggesting a prohibited a movie. movie. Possession Possession is a is a crime even when the the possessor knows the the movie movie was was mislabeled. Ashcroft Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. at 258. In the same way, way, the the Texas Texas statute statute prevents sexual communication between between consenting consenting adults even adults where even where both of them know that that one one of them of them is mislabeled as a minor. as a minor.! B. OVERBREADTH B. Texas Penal Code Section (b)(1) is unconstitutionally is overbroad overbroad on on its face and is is not narrowly tailored tailored to promote to promote a compelling a compelling state interest, state interest, as it prohibits a a substantial amount amount of protected of protected speech, speech, the prohibition the prohibition of of which is is unnecessary to to the the protection of children. of children. B.1. Section is very is very similar similar to the to statute the statute issue at in issue Reno in v. ACLU, Reno v. 521 ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997). There, the the Court reviewed the Communications the Decency Decency Act (CDA) which which criminalized criminalized using a using telecommunications a telecommunications device to device to transmit communication that that is obscene is obscene or indecent, or indecent, knowing that knowing the that the recipient is is under under The The Court Court held the held act the to be act an to unconstitutional be an unconstitutional restriction on on adult speech. It explained: It In arguing that that the CDA the does CDA not does so diminish not adult so diminish adult communication, the the Government relies on relies the incorrect on the incorrect factual premise that that prohibiting a transmission a whenever whenever it is it is known that one one of of its its recipients is a is minor a minor would would not interfere not interfere 5

6 with adult-to-adult communication. The findings The of findings the of the District Court make make clear clear that this that premise this premise untenable. is untenable. Given the size of of the the potential audience for most for most messages, messages, in in the absence of of a a viable viable age age verification verification process, process, the sender the sender must be charged with with knowing that that one or one more more minors minors will will likely view view it. Knowledge it. Knowledge that, for that, instance, for instance, one or more one or more members of of a 100-person a chat chat group group will be will a minor-and be a minor-and therefore that that it would it would be a crime be a to crime send the to send group an the group an indecent message-would surely surely burden communication burden communication among adults..... [The Government s] argument argument ignores ignores the fact the that fact mostthat most Internet forums-including chat rooms, chat rooms, newsgroups, newsgroups, mail mail exploders, and and the Web-are the Web-are open to open all comers. to all The comers. The Government's assertion that that the knowledge the knowledge requirement requirement somehow protects the the communications of adults of adults is therefore is therefore untenable. Even the the strongest reading of the of the specific specific person person requirement of of 223(d) 223(d) cannot cannot save the save statute. the statute. It would It would confer broad powers of of censorship, in the in the form form of a heckler's of a heckler's veto, upon any any opponent opponent of indecent of indecent speech who speech might who might simply log log on on and and inform inform the would-be the would-be discoursers discoursers that his that his 17-year-old child-a specific person person... under... under 18 years 18 years of age, of age, 47 U.S.C.A. 223(d)(1)(A) (Supp.1997)-would be be present. Reno v. ACLU, U.S. U.S. at at In striking In striking down the down CDA, the the CDA, Reno the Reno Court emphasized that, that, even even where where knowing knowing communication communication with an with an actual minor is is required to violate to violate the law, the burdens law, burdens on adult on speech adult arespeech are unacceptable if less if less restrictive restrictive alternatives alternatives are available are and available sexual and sexual expression which is indecent is indecent but not but obscene not obscene is protected is protected by the First by the First Amendment. B.2. In In this this case, case, less less restrictive restrictive alternatives alternatives are available. are available. For example, For example, Texas Texas might delete section section (a)(1)(A), the the definition of minor of as minor an as an 6

7 individual who who represents himself himself or herself or herself to be to younger be younger than 17 than years 17 of years of age. Whether this this would would cure cure the overbreadth the overbreadth problem problem is unclear, is from unclear, from reading the the second quoted quoted paragraph paragraph of Reno, of Reno, but the but statute the would statute at would at least be less overbroad. B.3. Applicant s belief is, is, in this in this case, case, not dispositive. not dispositive. Even if Even he had if believed he had believed the complainant to be to an be adult, an adult, he could he challenge could challenge section section as unconstitutionally overbroad. When a a statute prohibits speech speech or expressive or expressive conduct, conduct, the the overbreadth doctrine allows allows a person a person whose whose own expression own expression is unprotected to to challenge the the statute statute on the on ground the ground that it that it also prohibits protected speech. speech. This This an is exception an exception to the to the general rule rule that that a person a to person whom a to statute whom may a statute may constitutionally be be applied applied may not may challenge not challenge the statutethe statute based on the the possibility that that it could it could be unconstitutional be unconstitutional in in other applications. Overbreadth challenges challenges are permitted are permitted in in the First Amendment context context not for not the benefit for the of the benefit of the litigant, but but for for the the benefit benefit of society, of society, to prevent to prevent the statute the statute from chilling the the constitutionally protected protected speech speech of other of other parties not not before the the court. court. A statute A statute that is found that is to be found to be overbroad may not not be enforced be enforced at all, at even all, against even against speech speech that could constitutionally be prohibited be prohibited by a more by a narrowly more narrowly drawn statute. Commission for Lawyer Discipline v. v. Benton, S.W.2d 425, 425, (Tex. (Tex. Sup. Sup. Ct. 1998) (cites omitted). 7

8 B.4. The The statute statute reaches reaches a substantial a substantial amount amount of constitutionally of constitutionally protected protected conduct. This definition of minor of minor encompasses adults adults who define who define their age their age on MySpace as as 14 just so so they can can set set their their profile profile for extra for extra privacy. privacy. It mayit may include adults whose screennames are monikers are monikers like like little13yrold@aol.com or bornin1995@rr.com. It would It would certainly certainly include include adults who take take part part in commercial in commercial internet internet services services catering catering to people to people who like to to pretend they they are are children children in order in order to engage to engage in certain sexual certain sexual fantasies.! C. VAGUENESS C. Texas Penal Code Section (b)(1) is unconstitutionally is vague vague on its on its face. C.1. Section (a)(3) defines sexually explicit explicit as: as: Any communication, language, language, or material, or material, including aincluding a photographic or or video video image, image, that relates that relates to or describes to or describes sexual conduct, as as defined defined by [Texas by [Texas Penal Penal Code] Section Code] Section The Texas Legislature somehow managed managed to define to define a phrase a phrase ( sexually ( sexually explicit ) that that in normal in normal usage usage is adjectival, is adjectival, as a noun. as No a noun. matter: No the matter: the legislature can can give give words words special special meanings meanings for purposes for purposes of statutes of statutes (for (for example, defining minors to include to include grownups pretending to beto be 8

9 minors ); there exists no no obstacle to changing to adjectives adjectives to nouns to nouns or nouns or nouns to verbs. Section (b)(1) then then goes goes on to on outlaw to outlaw communicating communicating in in a[n any communication, language, or material, including a a photographic or or video image, that relates to or describes sexual conduct, as defined by [Texas Penal Code] Section 43.25] manner with a minor. a This This makes makes absolutely absolutely no sense. no It sense. It renders the statute unconstitutionally vague, vague, illustrates illustrates the lack the of lack thought of thought that went into into the the drafting of this of this statute, statute, and should and should put paid put to paid any idea to any idea that the Texas Legislature knew what what it was it was doing doing when when it wrote it wrote C.2. If we could be be generous generous and and rewrite rewrite the statute the for statute the legislature for the legislature (we (we can t) so so that sexually explicit explicit means means relating relating to or describing to or describing sexual sexual conduct, the the statute would still still be vague. be vague. Sexual Sexual conduct conduct is defined is defined as as Sexual contact, actual or or simulated sexual sexual intercourse, deviate deviate sexual intercourse, sexual sexual bestiality, bestiality, masturbation, masturbation, sadomasochistic abuse, or or lewd lewd exhibition exhibition of the genitals, of the the genitals, the anus, or any portion of of the the female female breast breast below below the top the of top theof the areola. Texas Penal Code Code section section 43.25(a)(2). A A prohibited communication communication therefore would include anything anything relating relating to the to laundry the list laundry of sexual list of sexual conduct. How closely such such communication may may relate relate to these to items these and items and be permitted is unspecified; is outlawed outlawed communications communications could include could sado- include 9

10 anything from the the word word breast breast to a picture to a picture of a swimsuit. of a swimsuit. Even wheneven when considered along with with the the requirement requirement of the of intention the intention to arouse to any arouse any person, a good portion of of commercial advertising could could fit this fit description. this description. The law would purport purport to criminalize to criminalize the purveyor the purveyor of any website of any that website that posts sexually explicit materials materials like sexy like ads sexy for ads Calvin for Klein Calvin Jeans Klein or Jeans or the Gossip Girls show. show. If the If the website website targets targets minors minors as a consumer as a consumer group group or knows that that it commonly it commonly has minor has viewers, minor then viewers, it would be then it would be intentionally communicating to minors to minors violation in violation of the law. of the It could law. It also could also include a a father sending an an to his to 16 his year 16 year old son old with son a with photo a of photo a of a topless lady or a or dirty a dirty joke. The joke. The intent to to arouse arouse element element may be may be arguable in in some some cases, cases, but but the the danger danger of arbitrary of arbitrary enforcement enforcement is real is real because Texas law law allows allows a jury to a infer jury such to intent infer from such the intent from the circumstances. A A prosecutor would would reasonably reasonably argue in argue any of these in any of these circumstances, Why else else would anyone anyone send send this this cheesy cheesy nude nude picture picture but but to titillate? C.3. To To determine whether whether challenged the challenged statute provides statute fair provides notice (and fair notice (and thus is is not unconstitutionally vague), vague), the court the must court examine must examine whether whether it: it: (1) give[s] the the person of of ordinary intelligence intelligence a reasonable a reasonable opportunity opportunity to to 10

11 know what is is prohibited; and and (2) provide[s] (2) provide[s] explicit explicit standards standards for those for those who apply [it]. [it]. Bynum Bynum v. State, v. State, S.W.2d S.W.2d 769, 769, (Tex. (Tex. Crim. Crim. App. App. 1989) 1989) (quoting Grayned v. City v. City of Rockford, of Rockford, 408 U.S , U.S. 108, 104, 92108, S.Ct. 92 S.Ct. 2294, , 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972)); accord Sanchez v. State, 995 S.W.2d 677, 689 (Tex.Crim.App.), cert. cert. denied, U.S. U.S. 1021, 1021, S.Ct. S.Ct. 531, 531, L.Ed.2d L.Ed.2d (1999). C.4. As As in overbreadth in overbreadth challenges, challenges, if the statute if the affects statute communication affects communication protected by by the the First First Amendment, then then a defendant a defendant has standing has standing some in some cases to challenge the statute as as vague on on its its face, face, even even if it does if it does not affect not affect her own First First Amendment rights. rights. White White v. State, v. State, 50 S.W.3d 50 S.W.3d 31 (Tex.App.- 31 (Tex.App.- Waco 2001) (citing Young v. v. American Mini Mini Theatres, Inc., Inc., U.S. U.S. 50, 50, 59-60, 59-60, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 2447, 49 L.Ed.2d (1976); accord Long Long v. v. State, State, S.W.2d 285, 288 (Tex. Crim. App. App. 1996); 1996); Smith Smith v. State, v. State, S.W.2d S.W.2d 946, 946, 950 (Tex. 950 (Tex. App. Dallas 1989, pet. pet. ref'd); ref'd); Al-Omari v. State, v. State, S.W.2d S.W.2d 892, 892, (Tex. (Tex. App. Beaumont 1983, 1983, pet. pet. ref'd)). ref'd)). The exception The exception is justified is by justified the by the overriding importance of maintaining of maintaining a free and a free open and market open for the market for the interchange of of ideas. Young, U.S. U.S. at at 60, 60, S.Ct. S.Ct. at 2447; at 2447; Al-Omari,

12 S.W.2d at 896; accord Morehead v. State, 807 S.W.2d 577, 580 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991).! D. Violative of of the the! Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine D. Texas Texas Penal Penal Code Code Section Section (b)(1) (b)(1) violates violates the Dormant the Commerce Dormant Commerce Clause Doctrine because because it unduly it unduly burdens burdens interstate commerce interstate by commerce by attempting to to place regulations on on the the entirety entirety of the of internet. the internet. D.1. This This negative aspect aspect of the of Commerce the Commerce Clause Clause represents represents the notion the that notion that by specifically granting congress congress the power the power to legislate to legislate in this area, in itthis area, it prohibits the the states states from legislation from legislation that unduly that restricts unduly interstate restricts interstate commerce. In In American Libraries Assoc. v. v. Pataki, F.Supp (S.D.N.Y. 1997) the District Court considered a New a New York York law making law making it a crime it a for crime for an individual to to intentionally use use a computer a computer to engage to in aengage in a communication with with a minor a minor which which depicted depicted actual or actual simulated or simulated nudity, nudity, sexual conduct, or or sadomasochistic abuse abuse and and which which was harmful was harmful to the to the minor. In In addition to being to being overbroad overbroad and vague and vague with respect with respect to the First to the First Amendment, the the court court also also held held the law the violated law violated the Dormant the Dormant Commerce Commerce Clause, noting that that the the Internet Internet is one is of one those of areas those of areas commerce of commerce that that must be be marked marked off as off a national as a preserve national to preserve protect users to from protect users from 12

13 inconsistent legislation that, that, taken taken to its most to its extreme, most extreme, could paralyze could paralyze development of of the the Internet Internet altogether. altogether. Thus, the Thus, Commerce the Commerce Clause Clause ordains that only only Congress can can legislate legislate in this in area, this area, subject, subject, of course, of course, to to whatever limitations other other provisions of the of Constitution the Constitution (such as (such the First as the First Amendment) may may require.! Other States Have Laws! That Pass First Amendment Muster Muster 2. It would not not be be impossible for the for Texas the Texas Legislature Legislature to write a to law write thata law that protects our our actual actual children children from online from solicitation online solicitation without unduly without unduly interfering with with adults adults free free speech. speech. In contrast In contrast to the to section the section , , there there are many state online solicitation laws laws that have that withstood have withstood constitutional constitutional scrutiny. These laws laws are are acceptable because because they they are said are to said restrict to the restrict the conduct of of luring as as well well as as speech. 2.A. For For example, in Cashatt in Cashatt v. State, v. State, 873 So.2d 873 So.2d 430 (Fla. 430 Dist. (Fla. Ct. Dist. App. Ct. 2004), App. 2004), Florida s First District Court Court of Appeal of Appeal upheld upheld the Computer the Computer Pornography Pornography and Child Exploitation Prevention Prevention Act, which Act, prohibited which prohibited knowingly utilizing a computer a on-line on-line service, service, Internet Internet service, or service, local bulletin or local bulletin board service to to seduce, solicit, lure, lure, or entice, or entice, or attempt or attempt to seduce, to seduce, solicit, solicit, lure, or or entice, a child a child or another or another person person believed believed by the person by the to person be a to be a 13

14 child, to to commit any any illegal illegal act described act described in chapter in chapter 794, relating 794, relating to sexual to sexual battery; chapter 800, relating to lewdness to lewdness and indecent and indecent exposure; exposure; or or chapter 827, relating to to child child abuse, abuse, commits commits a felony a felony of the of third the degree, third degree, punishable as as provided in s. in , s. s , s. or s. or s. The The Florida Florida court upheld the the law, law, deciding, it passes it passes the strict the strict scrutiny scrutiny test because test because it it promotes a a compelling state state interest interest protecting protecting children children from persons from persons who solicit or or lure lure them them to commit to commit illegal illegal acts, and acts, is and narrowly is narrowly tailored to tailored to promote that that interest, interest, specifically specifically limiting its prohibitions limiting toits prohibitions to communication intended to solicit to solicit or lure or lure a child a child to commit to commit illegal acts. illegal acts. 2.B. Nevada s luring luring law was law also was held also to held pass to First-Amendment pass First-Amendment muster. See muster. See State v. Colosimo, 122 Nev. 950, 142 P.3d 352, 33 A.L.R.6th 785 (2006) (statute prohibiting a person a person from from using using a computer a computer to contact to or contact communicate or communicate with a a child less less than than years years of age of age with with the intent the intent to persuade, to persuade, lure, or lure, or transport the the child away away from from his or his her or home her home or from or any from location any location known known to his or her parent or or guardian, without without consent, consent, with the with further further intent ofintent of engaging in in sexual conduct with with the the child). child). 2.C. New New York, York, too, has too, an has online an solicitation online solicitation statute that statute passed that the First passed the First Amendment s strict-scrutiny test. test. See People See People v. Foley, v. Foley, 94 N.Y.2d 94 N.Y.2d 668, ,

15 N.Y.S.2d 467, 731 N.E.2d 123 (2000) (knowing the the character and and content content of of the communication that, that, in whole in whole or part, or depicts part, actual depicts or simulated actual or simulated nudity, sexual conduct, or sadomasochistic or abuse, abuse, and that and is that harmful is harmful to to minors, such person intentionally uses uses a computer a computer system system to initiate to orinitiate or engage in such communication with with a minor, a minor, N.Y. Penal N.Y. Penal Law (1), Law (1), and, by means of of such communication, such such person person importunes, invites, invites, or or induces a minor to to engage in in sexual conduct for such for such person's person's benefit). benefit). 2.D. In In fact, fact, Section Section of the of Texas the Texas Penal Penal Code Code already already outlaws outlaws luring anluring an actual minor, or or a person a person whom whom the actor the actor believes believes to an to actual be an minor. actual minor. Section s luring subsection, subsection, (c) would probably probably be be constitutional if it if could it could be applied be applied only to only an actor an who actor believes who believes that the that the person lured is is a a child. V. PRAYER For those reasons, Applicant prays prays that that this this Honorable Honorable Court Court issue a issue Writ a Writ of Habeas Corpus to to the the Sheriff Sheriff of Harris of Harris County, County, Texas, commanding Texas, commanding him to him to bring Applicant before before this Court this Court instanter, instanter, or at such or time at or such place time to beor place to be designated by by this this Court, Court, and and then and then there and to there show to cause, show if any, cause, why if the any, why the Applicant should not not be be discharged from from illegal illegal confinement. confinement. Applicant Applicant further further 15

16 prays that that the court the hold court section hold section unconstitutional, quash quash the the indictment, and and dismiss dismiss the the charges charges against against Applicant. Applicant. Respectfully Submitted, Bennett && Bennett, Lawyers Lawyers 735 Oxford Street Houston, Texas Tel Fax By: Mark Bennett SBN Attorney for for Defendant VERIFICATION STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF OF HARRIS On this day day the the Petitioner, Mark Mark Bennett Bennett (attorney (attorney for the Applicant) for the Applicant) appeared before me, me, the the undersigned notary notary public, public, and after and I administered after I administered an oath to to him, him, upon upon his oath, his he oath, said he said read the Application read the Application for Writ of for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the the facts facts in it in are it true, are true, according according to his belief. to his belief. Mark Bennett SWORN TO TO and and SUBSCRIBED before before me by Mark me by Bennett Mark on Bennett the on the day of, Notary Public in in and and for for the State of of Texas 16

17 17